Just a blogger. Since 2003.

Menu

Joe Klein feels the hate

Time Magazine columnist Joe Klein is feeling the hate from the left these days. He’s against the Iraq war, against the idea of a troop surge, and can’t stand the administration. Well then, what’s the problem? you may ask. Here it is: he wants us to win in Iraq. He’s also very critical of war plan critics in the press, like the NYT’s Paul Krugman. Klein wrote yesterday:

I’m afraid I’m going to get cranky about this: The Democrats who oppose the so-called “surge” are right. But they have to be careful not to sound like ill-informed dilettantes when talking about it.

The latest to make a fool of himself is Paul Krugman of the New York Times, who argues that those who favor the increase in troops are either cynical or delusional. Mostly the latter. Delusional neocons like Bill Kristol and Fred Kagan, to be precise. But what about retired General Jack Keane–whom Krugman doesn’t mention–and the significant number of military intellectuals who have favored a labor-intensive counterinsurgency strategy in Baghdad for the past three years? They are serious people. They may be wrong about Iraq now, reflexively trying to complete a mission that has been lost, but they are not delusional. They may be wrong about Iraq now, reflexively trying to complete a mission that has been lost, but they are not delusional. The counterinsurgency doctrine they published in 2006 is exactly what the U.S. military should be doing in places like Afghanistan.

[…]

Liberals won’t ever be trusted on national security until they start doing their homework.

Check the comments to that post. It would seem that Klein committed numerous “nonos” with the anti-war far left: 1) he attacked liberal icon Paul Krugman, 2) he slammed liberals for not being more informed on the issue, and 3) he wants us to win the war in Iraq.

The illiberal left just hates it when I point out that the Democratic Party’s naivete on national security–and the left wing tendency to assume every U.S. military action abroad is criminal–just aren’t very helpful electorally. The fact that I’ve been opposed to the Iraq war ever since this 2002 article in Slate just makes it all the more aggravating. But it’s possible to have been against the war and to hope for the best in Iraq. I’d bet that the overwhelming majority of Americans who now oppose the war are praying for a turn for the better in Iraq. Listening to the leftists, though, it’s easy to assume that they are rooting for an American failure.

And so a challenge to those who slagged me in their comments. Can you honestly say the following:

Even though I disagree with this escalation, I am hoping that General Petraeus succeeds in calming down Baghdad.

Does the thought even cross your mind? As for me, it’s easy–I’ve been rooting for U.S. success ever since the invasion because, after the overpowering arrogance and stupidity that led to this disaster, we owe some peace and stability to the Iraqis and the region.

Klein’s just hit on what so many anti-war leftists (including certain members of Congress) don’t want to admit: they don’t want us to succeed in Iraq. Success in Iraq would not just be a victory for America, but also for President Bush’s policies in the war on terror, and that doesn’t sit well with the Bush-haters in the Democratic party who have portrayed him as a bumbling, inept Commander in Chief.

Back in December of 2005, I quoted a post of Steve Verdon’s at Outside the Beltway, which I thought summed up what the anti-war Democrats’ attitude on Iraq perfectly. Verdon wrote:

Frankly, the Democrats tactic of saying we can’t win in Iraq strikes me as precisely the wrong approach to the problem. If the Democrats “win” on this one the result is that we lose. We lose in Iraq and we quite possibly degrad[e] our ability to prosecute the war on terrorism in other parts of the world. Maybe that is what the Democratic party leadership wants, but it doesn’t look like a very good strategy for making the U.S. saferâ€¦which ironically is one of the Democrats complaints about invading Iraq in the first place.

He was right then, and even more right today. If America loses in Iraq, the Democratic party ‘wins.’ Klein is clearly a liberal, but he nevertheless pushes and hopes for American success in Iraq. It’s not about party to him, it’s about winning. Unfortunately, all too many other Democrats don’t hold his position and equate being an advocate of winning in Iraq (in spite of being against the war) to being a Bush shill.

It’s a sad commentary on the state of the Democratic party who are now, unfortunately, the new majority in Washington, DC. The only way they ‘win’ on the issue is if we lose in Iraq. Think about it.

Related: Speaking of anti-war Bush-haters, check out this imbeach, I mean, “Impeach Bush” rally held a few days ago at San Francisco’s Ocean Beach. Note how the word “Bonfire” is outlined in red in the first pic (Hat tip: See-Dubya, guest blogging at Michelle Malkin’s)

Post navigation

132 thoughts on “Joe Klein feels the hate”

I looked at all the pics of the impeach deal at the beach. What total moonbats these folks are and they all looked so cute in their tin foil hats.
I also checked out bumper stickers … God but these folks really hate Isreal …..PATHETIC.

The most interesting aspect of Klein v. Krugman to me is Klein’s pointing out that Gen. Petraeus’s counterinsurgency tactics might well make the difference in Afghanistan.

If the general had been in charge in Iraq three years ago, things might be different now. At least he understands how to fight these kinds of wars instead of relying on the same old same old we’ve been using without much success for sixty years.

As for these far leftists who want us to lose: I don’t know any of ’em so I can’t comment on that. I imagine there are some out there, but hopefully not very many.

I have only one request- when you say “win” or “lose,” please define that term, at least loosely. Otherwise, it simply seems that supporting W means win, and not supporting him means lose, regardless of what he is proposing to do. If that is what you mean, then apparently the majority of the country wants America to lose, which doesn’t seem right.

Yawn. It’s pathetic how you trot out just another tired old version of the “Democrats hate America!” line.

Based on all the mistakes, bad strategy, undermanning and improperly equipping our military that Bush and his boys have done since Day 1 of the war, it’s a lot easier to make the case that HE’S the one who wants America to lose.

But if you’re right, apparently (depending on which polls you believe) anywhere between 75% and 90% of America wants to lose, too.

Have fun crying in the dark. The Dems will be busy making sure our men and women in uniform get home safely.

Nah, the only people who want us to lose are the far leftists who didn’t want us to go to war in Iraq in the first place. Truth hurts, doesn’t it? Cutting and running from Iraq doesn’t equate to support, no matter how much you and your other far left pals want to spin it, Matt. Deal with it.

i’m so tired of this “…the lefties want us to lose…” rant. what garbage. why don’t you righties find someone capable of winning anything and then we can talk. your president has f’ed up every step of the way. going back to his oil company and the texas rangers baseball team. every single step. and now you want us to commit more money and kill more brave soldiers…why? because he thinks it’s a good idea? he has thought that every other idea was a good idea. and he couldn’t have benn more wrong. you would have to be insane to listen to him now.

I’ve felt Iraq was being handled a bit like your favorite sports team that decides not change the game plan at half time once it is clear we’re getting beat. It is incredibly frustrating. Iraq was, from my perspective, number 8 or 4 or whatever on the list of important to do’s but was treated like it was number 1. So not only did we focus way too much on a medium priority before getting the other things done, we executed a poor game plan. That being said, I was hopeful there might be a hail mary. But it really doesn’t look like that anymore. After all, it would be great if Bush’s exceedingly long shot plan actually worked and there was stability in the middle east. But that’s like assuming that even Tiger Woods will get a hole in one on a tough par 4. Rare indeed, but it does happen.

Liberals may think Bush is a dangerous idiot, and they may be conflicted about the war, but I really think only a small percentage want us to lose. What they want is for Bush to be exposed fully as the poor president they think he is. And it seems as though that is happening. Being pessimistic about Iraq isn’t the same as wanting us to lose.

Sister, it must be nice to live in a fantasy land where America never loses, Vietnam never happened, and other superpower-vs-middle east country wars (see: USSR vs Afghanistan) never took place.

We did not lose this war. It was unwinnable. And blindly, desperately pressing forward in an attempt to “win” at the expense of our brave men and women in uniform’s lives is anti-American and traitorous.

what does lose mean? what does win mean? if win means we defeat all the terrorist threats against america, by fighting in Iraq, it is a foregone conlusion we are going to lose. seriously, we need to define the terms, otherwise this is a useless discussion, amounting to people on the right simply saying liberals are against america, but coding it by saying liberals want to lose. this argument finds its parameters in supporting The W and his policies, so that when liberals get on board with those, then they want to “win.” if this is not so, then someone please tell me what we are talking about, if anyone knows.

Wow, S.T., you stirred up the nest this time. I’m curious, for all you Bush haters, do the democrats who voted for this war bear any accountability? Please don’t give me the “They voted for the authority to go to war, but they didn’t think he would USE it!!”, that’s pretty lame and stupid. Come up with something original.

Also, what should have we done with Iraq? Nothing? Something? What?

Please, all you armchair generals, enlighten us all with your expertise on foreign policy, national defense, and terrorism. You guys sound like the last 100 episodes of the Keith Olberman show!!

“so many anti-war leftists (including certain members of Congress) don’t want to admit: they don’t want us to succeed in Iraq.”

No, we just believe the US has already failed, and therefore don’t invest emotionally in the idea of winning. It might look the same as wishing for defeat, but it’s quite different. We’re not wishing for, but rather acknowledging, defeat.

I honestly want things to turn around in Iraq. I just don’t believe they will, and would rather leave now than in a few years, once another few thousand americans are dead.

The main point of disagreement at this point is whether things will get better in Iraq. Obviously it would be irresponsible to advocate staying (or escalating) if you didn’t believe things at least could get better. Right? You all believe things can get better over there, right? Is there anyone here who doesn’t think things can get better, but advocates staying (or escalating)?

We on the left don’t believe things can get any better in Iraq while we are there, so we advocate leaving. It’s not about wanting the US to win or lose…its about recognizing that we either a) can win or b) have already lost. That’s where the honest difference appears to be.

Yes, absolutely. That’s why I have particular respect for the democrats that had the guts to vote against the war.

The rest of congress let it happen by jumping on the bandwagon of deception. But at least they weren’t driving that bandwagon. And it’s not like the left is piling on republican senators about the war in general, so the comparison is apples-oranges.

barracuda: you know, WIN, kinda like the Democrats did back in November?

jay k.: “Find someone capable of winning”? You mean like the people in your party who control Congress, now? I hope not. We already know what their definition of “winning” is.

so, apparently what you’re saying is the democrats definition of winning is losing, but by losing they won in november.

seriously, though, what do you mean by win- no more terrorists? democratic govt in Iraq? depose saddam hussein? find weapons of mass destruction? world peace? What is winning. I am beginning to suspect that you, like your leade the W, don’t know, which is why you cannot tell anyone. Winning is more than just a slogan.

NC Cop:
the democrats who voted for war should be held accouintable, but that does not mean that, by and large, this war is not Bush’s baby. In addition, what we should have done was not invaded Iraq, but that is in the past now. but now that we’re there, the fact that people aren’t sure what to do doesn;t mean that they can’t oppose The W doing something which they think is more stupid than what he is doing now, ie, a surge. opposing a bad plan is not mutually exclusive from not knowing what to do. for instance, I may not be sure what my next best career move is, but opting to not do something bad for my career is better than doing that bad thing simply for the sake of doing something.

The W is under pressure to do something, but he doesn;t know what to do, so he wants to keep doing the same thing, but with more people (surge). Maybe this is the right thing to do, I’m really not sure, but if the administratiojn didn;t lie about everything, they would have the credibility left for people to trust them. but they don’t. hence the predicament. i am for winning, unless that means doing things that are stupid under the slogan of “winning.” in which case, i guess i’m not for winning. i’m never for losing. whatever any of those terms mean. someone help me out here.

Yes Sister. I’ll repeat myself. Cowardly sending more and more American soldiers to die in Iraq when “winning” is not possible is anti-American and traitorous.

Not many people believe we should have stayed in Vietnam to continue suffering thousands of American lives. And you’re in the vast minority of people who believe we should stay in Iraq and keep getting killed in a war we can’t win.

Sistah, the Democrats have not worked to portray W has a bumbling, inept Commander in Chief. He didn’t need any help from the Democrats. He’s done quite well on his own.

The Democratic congress folk who voted for the authorization of use of force regarding Iraq did so because the Republican party was busy vilifying them and questioning their patriotism. This is Bush’s war. This is his responsibility and it has been his management of this war that has brought us to the sorry state we are in now. No one wishes for defeat in Iraq — can you provide any citation or credible quote from anyone on the left who has said that they wish for the US to lose this conflict? These strawman arguments are counter-productive and pretty self-serving.

“so, apparently what you’re saying is the democrats definition of winning is losing, but by losing they won in november.”

Um, no. Democrats should put as much energy into coming up with ideas to help us win this thing as they did trying to get elected. That would be a refreshing change.

“seriously, though, what do you mean by win- no more terrorists? democratic govt in Iraq? depose saddam hussein? find weapons of mass destruction? world peace? What is winning. I am beginning to suspect that you, like your leade the W, don’t know, which is why you cannot tell anyone. Winning is more than just a slogan.”

I’m beginning to suspect that you, like your other anti-war comrades, don’t really care to define winning because why understand something you’re not interested in doing?

Winning has been defined many times by the CIC, and those who actually LISTEN to what the man says know that.

Just for you, though, I did a simple search of the WH website so you can see what the President himself has said about it:

Some of the things on that page have probably been redefined, as often happens in a war, but the essential goals remain the same.

Now, what was that about my “leade” not knowing what winning was again? And why is it that you and so many other lefties continue to assert that the President hasn’t defined what winning in Iraq means when he clearly has? Is this one of those “if we repeat it so many times it should become an Accepted Truth” thing from you guys?

ME (straight from the horses mouth folks) said, “No, we just believe the US has already failed, and therefore don’t invest emotionally in the idea of winning. It might look the same as wishing for defeat, but it’s quite different. We’re not wishing for, but rather acknowledging, defeat.”

That’s why we don’t like you. Because you’re gonna get us killed. …. What movie did Samuel L. Jackson say that in????

No. Really, we like you ME but your are a defeatist. You aren’t focused on averting a humanitarian crisis and you aren’t listening to Zarqawi himself when he talks of implementing the Islamic Caliphate in the Middle East and using the resources gained to make Islam dominant in Europe and America. I certainly don’t want our women in burka’s. I will not submit to Islam. Only women.

BTW leftists. The line about Bush failing to supply the troops and do this and that is funny because it’s as if you think there is no Pentagon or Department of Defense. That Bush supercedes 100’s of thousands of Defense emplyees who are responsible with ordering equipment based on Congressional budgets that were asked for and appropriated for based on requests from the Pentagon and Defense Department. Your micromanaging rhetoric (repeated often by lefties) only serves to show us how without basis your arguments are. It does nothing to convince us but actually the reverse. It serves to show us flaws in your thinking and sources of information.

If the problem you are referring to is terrorism, then you are correct, not invading iraq will not solve the problem. However, invading Iraq also does not solve the problem, but, in fact, creates many other problems which would not have been created were it not for the invasion. Thus, i stand by my suggestion that we should have not invaded, and continued to do what we were doing, which was contain the situation.

I realize that this does not have the ass kicking satisfaction that many people desire, but it was a sustainable policy. I feel that this should not need to be mentioned, but Iraq was not connected to 9/11. before iraq, we had a lot of other people somewhat on our side. After Bush, etc squandered international goodwill, lives, and billions of dollar we’re stuck in a big hole with no good end in sight.

so you tell me concretely how invading iraq has solved the problem, and then your “solution” can be considered better than mine.

“Yes Sister. I’ll repeat myself. Cowardly sending more and more American soldiers to die in Iraq when “winning” is not possible is anti-American and traitorous.”

It sure is, if you’re a defeatist Democrat.

“Not many people believe we should have stayed in Vietnam to continue suffering thousands of American lives.”

Um, we people who supported staying in ‘nam didn’t support it because they wnated to “continue suffering thousands of American lives.” They wanted us to win in Vietnam. Big difference. Your strawman tactics are becoming the stuff of legend in a short time, Matt. Kept it up.

“And you’re in the vast minority of people who believe we should stay in Iraq and keep getting killed in a war we can’t win.”

See above. I’m a realist and I know there will be American casualties in war. That doesn’t mean I want people killed. I just know that it happens. That’s one of the differences between people who understand wars are sometimes necessary and those who don’t.

“And speaking of straw man arguments, Sister, your “If you’re not for winning, you’re for losing” rhetoric is old and tired.”

I swear, the truth is like a disease to you guys and you work hard at staying immunized from it.

“Democrats are FOR winning the war on terror. Which starts with inacting the recommendation of the 9/11 commission – something the Republicans couldn’t bring themselves to do.”

Peter: “No one wishes for defeat in Iraq — can you provide any citation or credible quote from anyone on the left who has said that they wish for the US to lose this conflict? These strawman arguments are counter-productive and pretty self-serving.”

It’s not a strawman argument. It’s the truth. Anyone who agrees with Murtha’s suggestion that we should cut and run – anyone who agrees with the Democratic idea to stop the war by pulling the purse strings on the funding for it right now, are defeatists who don’t want us to win this war.

“Can you back this assertion up with a link? I’d be surprised if any member of Congress, Democrat or Republican, has ever said they don’t want us to succeed in Iraq.”

Of course they wouldn’t come out and say it, in the same way that Bush wouldn’t admit to starting this war for oil, which is what the far left believes. Difference being is that Democratic actions and rhetoric back up what I say (wanting to cut the funding, wanting to leave too soon, etc) whereas the left doesn’t have a leg to stand on on the ‘war for oil!’ claims.

Ok, how? How should they be held accountable? Seems to me that all of the dems who voted for the war got re-elected. Why is that? Because it’s Bush’s “baby”, or because they sold the public on their “We didn’t see all the evidence on Iraq”? That’s just cowardice.

Another question to all the Bush haters here is: How do you define victory in Iraq? What should have happened in Iraq that would have allowed you to declare it a victory?

Doing nothing about Iraq? I guess that means for all the “sanctions fans” that you were ok with killing hundreds of thousands of children?

“You kill people without blood or organs flying around, without angering American public opinion. People are dying silently in their beds. If 5,000 children are dying each month, this means 60,000 a year. Over eight years, we have half a million children. This is equivalent to two or three Hiroshimas.”-Ashraf Bayoumi, former head of the World Food Programme Observation Unit, in charge of monitoring food distribution in Iraq (Al-Ahram Weekly, 24 December 1998).

When asked on US television if she [Madeline Albright, US Secretary of State] thought that the death of half a million Iraqi children [from sanctions in Iraq] was a price worth paying, Albright replied: “This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it.”

nc cop
democrats who voted for the war should be held accountable…to the point that they voted based upon cooked intelligence. of course you will will respond that they had the same intelligence the president had. malarkey. bob graham, who at the time sat on the intelligence committee, was able to see the real intelligence and voted against the war. and he spoke out as much as he could about classified information. most of the people on the hill saw only what the white house wanted them to see. they didn’t see that there were real doubts about curveballs credibility. they didn’t see that there were real doubts about the yellow cake from niger. they didn’t see that there were real doubts about the aluminum tubes that supposedly could only be used for nuclear arms. they didn’t see that there real questions about links between alqueda and iraq. i9t is pretty clear today that bush let cheney cook the books…thus it is, in fact, bushs war. what ever happened to republican values like accountability?

I copied Bush’s definition of winning in Iraq from the like provided above. The document is dated 2003, three long years ago. Only the short term goals have been met on even a limited basis. The medium and long term goals are farther away than they were three years ago. How long will we have to wait to achieve the long term goal, of an Iraq that is peaceful, united, and stable? I fear that it not be achieved in my lifetime and I do not want any more Americans to be killed or maimed for goals that are not achievable. My son is in the Army, currently stationed in Ramadi and I have a very personal interest in this. How many here who believe we can “win” in Iraq can say the same?

Victory in Iraq is Defined in Stages
Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.

Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.

Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.

Colin wrote, “I’d be surprised if any member of Congress, Democrat or Republican, has ever said they don’t want us to succeed in Iraq.”

They have said that Iraq is unwinnable. Splitting of hairs doesn’t help your side.

jay k. wrote, “based upon cooked intelligence”

Is intelligence always 100% accurate? No. Did Russian, British, French, German and American Intelligence all think that Iraq had biological and chemical weapons in the amount of stockpiles? Yes. Did Bill Clinton, Albright, Kerry, Gore all say before Bush was in office that Iraq had these thing? Yes. Seems to me you just got SPANKED with your faulty logic. You are quick with your Bush Derangement Syndrome to make accusations that you can’t back up. Citing faulty intelligence was not done by just Bush and is easy when the intelligence game is a faulty operation. It’s relying on information you think is accurate at the time and is never 100% correct. To assert that Bush cooked it shows your faulty logic and shows more about your faulty mindset than actually convincing anybody here of anything you think. It’s instructive.

Jay K. flat out lied with this statement, “most of the people on the hill saw only what the white house wanted them to see. Jay K. the line on that one is that Democrats weren’t priveldged to see the Presidential Daily Briefings that the president saw. Otherwise everyone on the intelligence committee had access to ALL of the DETAIL that the president saw and your faulty assertion goes to show everyone here your propensity to make stuff up. Very instructive.

Let’s see if you will be accountable for your inaccurate accusations. Conservatives don’t see Bush as 100% right on the issues. But what we see is your propensity to make stuff up and accuse inaccurately. Making false allegations does not help you look smart. It makes you look negligent.

Ah, yes, I see your definition, the good old national strategy for victory in Iraq, aka “Pie in the Sky Guide to Middle Eastern Nation Building.” you see, it is interesting that The W is also a fli flopper- he was against nation building before he was for it. i don’t remember these being the main goals of the invasion, but, ok, i like them, too. seriously, I think these are noble goals, but don;t they kind of seem like things the iraqis could define victory by for themselves, not us? How is this a victory that can be achieved by the military?

I guess the idea is that we put in enough troops to sustain a foreign military occupation, and that will create the environment in which all of the other things can happen. you see, I happen to disagree with this method. therefore, i do support Bush’s ends, just not his means. why is this so hard to understand? why am I a traitor because i don’t think more troops are going to make this any more likley to occur? What will make this happen? currently, i have no idea- probably nothing until the iraqis get some civil war out of their system, and God only knows what the other regional players are going to do.

perhaps we could make this happen, but we would probably have to choose sides, in which case we would be actively invoilved in someone else’s civil war. i seriously doubt the american people are going to get behind that.

NC Cop-
it is touching that you care about the children. i almost believe you care. almost. that has nothing to do with what’s happening now. in fact, there were altern

“That’s one of the differences between people who understand wars are sometimes necessary and those who don’t.”

Exactly. And this war wasn’t necessary. Finding Bin Laden, protecting our ports, implementing the 9/11 commission recommendations, keeping the Afghani drug trade and the Taliban from making a comeback – THOSE things were necessary.

Actually Wilson admitted that in 1999, a senior Iraqi “trade” delegation went to Niger. Uranium accounts for 75 percent of Niger’s exports. The rest is goats, cowpeas and onions. So, I guess you think Saddam was looking to import some goats, huh?

they didn’t see that there real questions about links between alqueda and iraq.

Let me highlight a few paragraphs for you, just in case you miss them:

In fact, during President Clinton’s eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton’s defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.

The other pronouncement is contained in a Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.
The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam’s regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists.

So was Clinton completely wrong or perhaps was he part of Bush’s evil plan? Perhaps Bush was manipulating Clinton while he was still governor of Texas?!?!

The only reason this war wasn’t ‘necessary’ to you, Matt, is because it’s Bush waging it. I doubt you had any objections to Clinton’s cruise missile strikes against Iraq back in the 90s which was, btw, an act of war.

“you aren’t listening to Zarqawi himself when he talks of implementing the Islamic Caliphate in the Middle East and using the resources gained to make Islam dominant in Europe and America. I certainly don’t want our women in burka’s. I will not submit to Islam.”

You listen to Zarqawi? Has it ever occured to you that they want us to stay in Iraq as long as possible so they can continue “bleeding us dry”? (they’ll fail at that monetarily, we are far too wealthy a nation to be bled dry, but they are already are using this as a recruiting tool).

You are playing into their hands by fearing them as you do. They want a USSR-Afghanistan redux, and you are unwittingly giving it to them.

“anyone who agrees with the Democratic idea to stop the war by pulling the purse strings on the funding for it right now, are defeatists who don’t want us to win this war.”

wow…I don’t even think you believe that. I think you are totally capable of understanding that they honestly don’t believe we can win. I just want to know, what makes any of you think we can win? What piece of knowledge do you posses that allows you to say “we will win if we stay long enough”? What have you figured out about fighting guerilla warfare that no other conventional army in the history of the world has ever figured out?

I wonder if you guys are the type who would tell your daughter that she is forbidden from seeing her boyfriend…you think you need to be strong and take a stand, after all, the stakes are SOOO high! she could lose her virginity, or worse, get pregnant! But you end up inadvertantly fueling the fire instead. The daughter? she just got impregnated by her bf while you weren’t looking, and won’t tell you about it, ever, because then you’ll ask what happened to the baby (it got aborted).

My daughter, she got the pill instead of a decree forbidding her from her bf. She’s not pregnant, and I actually know what’s going on in her life, because she isn’t afraid to tell me.

Your rightie ways get you an aborted baby and lack of communication with your daughter…even though you were only trying to avoid “bad” problems to begin with.

– This response is directed at all the Left dribblers in the audience, who always seem to feel the special need to hold forth with an avalaunch of verbal gushing and lexiconal gymnastics, everytime someone simply calls them out on what has been the overall “regain power” agenda of the left since a few weeks after 9/11. You moonies know, or should know if you’re going to go forth and gamely, if pathetically, try to dance around your purpose.

– That purpose is now, and always has been to turn the WOT back on the Republicans, through any and all means possible, including the propaganda mills, our beloved Liberal press, running in league with you, and willing to do and say anything to further the “cause”. You’re betting that most americans do not follow the politics closely enough to see through your garbage.

– Your reason’ de terre is simple. Everyone in politics knows that a reasonably successful outcome to the WOT during Bush’s admin. would be the kiss of death for the Left. Failing to turn it into another VietNam, would just about doom the Dems to another round of watching Republicans control the Congress and the White House. Ergo. Do everything you can to undermine, stall, and just generally defeat American will here at home, and American efforts to help transform the Middle East. The hell with the fight against the Islamists. The hell with the idea that we’d be leaving ourselves open to additional attacks if we go isolationaist. The cause, and partisan politics, is the only thing you believe in, or are interested in, plus regaining power.

– Them’s the facts moonbats. Anything else is attempts to obfuscate with polemic anti-American propaganda. Personally I hope you continue down this path, particularly with ploys like using so-called “oversight”, to cripple our troops, and their necessary funding. If you do that, and from the things Kennedrunk, Weird Charley Rangle, and gramma Pelosi are saying, it seems you’re hel lbent on going that way. If you do, you can all bend over and kiss your asses goodbye in ’08.

– Now, one of the questions the Libtards are trying to evade with, is what does “winning” mean. Apparently the Insurgent gangs, all of them collectively, have no problem understanding what losing means to their side, or they wouldn’t be blowing themselves up with desperate abandon, trying every inhuman, uncivil trick they can think of, to avoid stability. What happened to all that Geneva talk? I guess according to you on the Left, they get their cake, and eat it too. Well here it is. shove this in your tin-hats and smoke it.

* Winning *

– A stable, even warped, version of Democracy in Iraq, self governing, economically viable, and decidedly not a process by writ of beheading does the following.

1) Places another strong Democratic example right in the center of the Middle East, joining Israel, and making recruitments for Insurgents 1000 times harder, and in time would most likely drive a dagger right through the dreams of Celiphate.

2) Makes Irans Mullahs look like total idiots, and sets an unacceptable example for them to overcome, particularly since the majority in Iraq are Shite’s. The Mullahs days would be numbered with such an example for them to explain to their own surpressed people.

3) 35 Million Iraqui’s would finnaly have a chance to live under a relitively free system, in a part of the world where freedom is as much a dirty word as it seems to be to every form of “Socialist” movement in the world.

– Socialism, and all its many forms and guises, is the enemy of every free individual. Read it and weep SecProgs.

nc cop…
it’s one thing to say we think, another to say we KNOW. and another altogether to say we KNOW to congress under oath. that’s perjury and bush should actually be impeached for it. there are a number of books out on the selling of the war…i suggest you read them and find the truth. if bush was not cooking the books why have the republicans stopped their investigation of this matter? what are they afraid of? when the democrats start up that investigation again we will hopefully find out. i listed a bunch of areas, which you couldn’t debate so you resorted to personal attacks. i’m sure there are more.
and if you really think that regular house members were seeing what bush was seeing, you are naive beyond all belief.
gotta go…enjoy.

Come on, cop. don’t tell me that you actually thought about starving Iraqi children for more than the 30 seconds it took you to read a news article back in the sanctions days.

I do care about the troops. I think its tragic that they have to die for no good reason. what should I do to prove I care? How do you care about them, other than supporting Bush? In my opinion, supporting Bush is not supporting the troops because he actively and recklessly endangers their safety without an achievable military goal. supporting war is not the same as supporting the troops. i guess you should say you support their deaths.

ST said:
“Of course they wouldn’t come out and say it, in the same way that Bush wouldn’t admit to starting this war for oil, which is what the far left believes. Difference being is that Democratic actions and rhetoric back up what I say (wanting to cut the funding, wanting to leave too soon, etc) whereas the left doesn’t have a leg to stand on on the â€˜war for oil!’ claims.”

OK, so, no, you cannot provide a link of any Congressman stating they want us to fail in Iraq.

The Democrats have not introduced legislation to cut the funding of the war. A bill was introduced today to prevent funding for *increasing* our force in Iraq, which is completely different.

Baklava said:
“They have said that Iraq is unwinnable. Splitting of hairs doesn’t help your side.”

Stating one’s opinion that the Iraq war is unwinnable is not the same as hoping we fail in Iraq, which is what ST has accused as yet unnamed Democratic Congressmen of doing.

She is essentially accusing Congressmen of treason — that’s quite a charge and I think it should be backed up with specifics. Otherwise I have to assume she’s just making noise.

Because when you say “Anyone who agrees with Murtha’s suggestion that we should cut and run – anyone who agrees with the Democratic idea to stop the war by pulling the purse strings on the funding for it right now, are defeatists who don’t want us to win this war.”

Matt M says, “Exactly. And this war wasn’t necessary. Finding Bin Laden, protecting our ports, implementing the 9/11 commission recommendations, keeping the Afghani drug trade and the Taliban from making a comeback – THOSE things were necessary.”

It always goes back to the 4 year old decision that you disagree with. Unfortunately for you we are there and you don’t offer solutions going forward. You are stuck on the 4 year old decision that you disagree with. Accept what is. Now move forward. Would you Matt create a bigger humanitarian crisis by removing our troops before Iraq can stand on it’s own? Do you know what happened when we pulled out of Vietnam? Millions of Vietnamese were slaughtered and/or put in “reeducation” camps. Be brave and state your desire for going forward. We understand that you disagreed with the past decision. You also disagreed with the majority of Congress at the time also. It’s convenient to say now that I disagreed with the decision and then not have a good idea for moving forward.

a) he was a cheerleader for the Iraq invasion, when I and many of my other friends knew better.
b) now that it’s obvious the invasion of Iraq was a disaster, Joe Klein is trying to change his tune and say he *wasn’t* for the invasion of Iraq,
c) and worst of all, now that he’s pretending he was against the invasion, he’s still criticizing other liberals for being against the invasion, because they’re being too ‘shrill’ about it or something.

As if being against something is only acceptable if you’re properly polite about it, and don’t hold Joe Klein accountable.

I also don’t want the US to lose, and I don’t want soldiers to die for nothing.

But if the US is going to lose, then I don’t want soldiers to die so that Bush can run out the clock and hand the mess to someone else, pretending that he would have won.

If you want to actually understand why a Liberal would feel this way, read this article:

These same “compassionate” liberals are the ones making all the Vietnam references, how we should bug out like we did there. Well, the often overlooked facts are that the disgraceful abandonment of Vietnam resulted in 3-4 MILLION dead in SE Asia!!! I know those are small potatoes to those of their heroes, like Stalin and Mao, but cripes, millions dead, and that’s the kind of debacle they are longing for again.

They care about casualties only in the abstract sense that they can use them as arguments, when no longer useful for that, after the war is lost, then they care nothing. It’s the same liberal “compassion” that lets children die of malaria in Africa by the millions rather than abandon a junk science based ban on DDT. All so they can pat themselves on the back because they are the only ones who really “care.”

Seems telling that the liberals are in here arguing what the definition of “lose” when you point out they want to lose in Iraq. No no, it’s “redeployment” or some such drivel, right out of Orwellian Newspeak. Same as arguing what “sex” is, or what the meaning of “is” is. Hide behind changing terms and feints of language to hide the fact that you want defeat just to teach Bush a lesson, regardless of how much damage it does to the country or the world. BDS gone rampant and haywire.

Nope, Sister’s not mistaken, ME. I meant exactly what I said, but reserve a special note of disgust for those people on the left who never wanted us to win to begin with. The increase in the number of people who want a timetable for withdrawal includes people who USED to support this war who now think it can’t be won. There is a difference in those people and the Bush haters who’d despise the man no matter what he did, and who can’t put their hatred aside in order to be a part of the SOLUTION (winning) rather than the PROBLEM (losing).

My son is in the Army, currently stationed in Ramadi and I have a very personal interest in this. How many here who believe we can “win” in Iraq can say the same?

God bless you and your son, and please thank him for his service to our country!

That being said, in 2004 I resigned from my police department and took a job with a civilian contractor training Iraqi police. I was at a military base in Taji and I worked alongside U.S. soldiers helping to train the police around Baghdad. I spent 14 months there and made many friends, Iraqi and American. In Dec. 2005 while traveling back to the base from Baghdad the vehicle I was driving was hit with an IED. I lost both my legs below the knee and am now going through physcial therapy in an attempt to go back to police work. So, I like to think that I have a personal interest in this and I do think we can win. I think we can achieve the medium term goals, but I do agree that the long term goals need to be achieved mainly by the Iraqi people and it’s government. Yet, if we pull out too soon and the government collapses, how can we expect the long term goals to be reached.

I do care about the troops.

Gosh, I guess we’ll just have to take your word for it, huh barracuda? So instead of commenting on the damage that the sanctions were doing, you accuse me of not caring about the troops? Typical liberal tactic. As far as the Iraqi children. I routinely had candy and toys sent from home to hand out to the kids. I played soccer with the kids whenever I could and gave a few of them some money whenever I could. I participated in a shoe giveaway with the soldiers that I worked with and made it my goal to leave a good impression with those children since they will be the ones who will be in charge someday. Several of the soldiers I have worked with keep in touch, visit, and I have even helped them get jobs in law enforcement.

Now, I know this may not be as much as you ever did, but I think it entitles me to a little bit better perspective on what goes on over there. I know I’m not like Richard Belzer who reads alot of newspapers on the subject, but I think I can comment with some confidence on the situation there.

As satisfying as it ought to be to see the insanity of Bush and the neocons exposed for all to see, I find it hard to take much satisfaction. After all, my primary motivation for disliking them and hoping to see them discredited was to save the nation from the damage that they were likely to do. But it has come too late; at this point, all of my worst fears have been realized. The magnitude of the disaster, both for US interests and for Iraq, completely saps any pleasure I might have taken from being able to say, “I told you so.”

I even find it hard to oppose the escalation, even though I fully expect it to fail, and that the ultimate result will be the same as if we had pulled out, but with greater loss of American life. Still, after the price that Iraq has paid for our botched conduct of the war, it almost seems like we are morally obligated to try, even though it appears hopeless.

Joe Klein is a dishonest fool to claim â€“ as he does â€“ that liberals either hate America or want to lose in Iraq. This is probably the lamest of all of the strawman arguments that conservative commentators have attempted to pass off. I can respect either conservatives or liberals who are up-front about what they believe and defend their position with honesty and fairness. I don’t know if Klein is just a lying shill, or if he’s actually seriously deluded, but I don’t know any mainstream liberal (and I’m talking about the vast majority of all liberals) who wants us to fail in Iraq.

Sister, why don’t you and Joe put your reputations where your mouths are and come up with a list of all the liberals you can demonstrate have made statements that indicate that they want us to lose. No attempting to read other peoples’ minds allowed â€“ provide the actual evidence and compile the statistics. Show us all of the supposed liberals who want us to lose in Iraq or shut the hell up.

“Sister, why don’t you and Joe put your reputations where your mouths are and come up with a list of all the liberals you can demonstrate have made statements that indicate that they want us to lose. No attempting to read other peoples’ minds allowed â€“ provide the actual evidence and compile the statistics.”

It does not matter what you, or the “Left” (AKA the vast majority of America according to all recent polls) wants… all that matters is the fact that the Iraq war, as prosecuted by the Bush administrations, is, was, and always will be unwinnable. It is the single worst US foreign policy decision in our lifetimes, and it has George W. Bush’s name at the top of the masthead. As such, he deserves the most blame, followed by the Neocon idiots who egged him on, and only then followed by his enablers in Congress.

jvf: “It does not matter what you, or the “Left” (AKA the vast majority of America according to all recent polls) wants”

ST: 54% is a “vast majority of America”? Wow – then I guess that means since GWB was elected by 51% of Americans he won over a vast majority of Americans and really did have a mandate. Thanks for clearing that up!

jvf: “boy, there sure are a lot of “leftists” these daysâ€¦”

ST: Please learn to read very carefully through the comments before commenting further.

“Seems telling that the liberals are in here arguing what the definition of “lose” when you point out they want to lose in Iraq. No no, it’s “redeployment” or some such drivel, right out of Orwellian Newspeak. Same as arguing what “sex” is, or what the meaning of “is” is. Hide behind changing terms and feints of language to hide the fact that you want defeat just to teach Bush a lesson, regardless of how much damage it does to the country or the world. BDS gone rampant and haywire.”

Well said, as always, Sev. It’s like parsing the definition of funding for the war, too. Their ‘logic’, well, defies logic.

I suppose one could make the claim that Bush “losing” the war is not a totally bad thing, because clearly if there were any possible way for BushCo to spin the situation as anything better than “not losing”, he would have seen that as validation for his pre-emptive policies, and continued the invasion into Syria, Iran, and who know where, and things would have ended up being far worse than they are even now.

But no one is really making that claim.

So, while many felt that, “Hey, it’s a poor idea to invade, but maybe the intelligence about WMD is right?” (Hah!),they probably believed that, if we did invade, it would at least be with competent leaders.

Now we see the depths of their incompetence, the willfull blindness, the complete lack of understanding of the issues (does Bush now know the difference between Shi’ite and Sunni?), and a post-conflict plan for stabilization (“We don’t do nation-building.”) that never had a chance in hell of succeeding. It is not possible for someone with any understanding at all to see that, win or lose, it is too late for a military victory in Iraq.

BushCo. has no other idea than to keep sacrificing our soldiers while claiming that there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Why? To cover his ass, and hope to get lucky, maybe with one of Daddy’s pals handing him a way out. Meanwhile, our soldiers die. Only a “Commander in Chief” who has never done any kind of serious military service, the kind that Bush shirked, could be such a moral cretin as to continue this despicable foolishness so as not to look stupid. Too late.

There may be things that can be done to ameliorate the situation there, but BushCo, his multi-national oil cronies, and his neo-con con-men are not the people to do it.

NOW Bush wants to propose a plan to give the Iraqi people some way to make a living and re-build their country? Where was he three years ago? Oh yeah… that was when Halliburton got all the contracts, for ten times what qualified Iraqi civil engineers were willing to do it for and put their own people to work at the same time. No profit in that, is there, Dick. Who the hell is in charge of this clown-fest, anyway?
Anybody?

“So Sister Toldjah – you have no facts or evidence, but it feels right to you that us liberals and Leftists want the US to lose.”

Yes, they do. When they want to cut and run, they don’t want us to win. This is not rocket science.

“Guess what? I think conservatives want to eat anchovies on their pizza because they’re gay.

Now, none of you would come out and SAY thisâ€¦but I know what you’re thinking. And really you’re not fooling anyone. ”

What a stupid analogy. Reasonable conclusions can be drawn from how people act and what and how they say things. You have no reasonable basis whatsoever for your silly anchovies/gay analogy. I can’t believe you have the audacity to act like because someone hasn’t SAID something that they don’t believe it. I guess because Bush hasn’t ‘admitted’ he didn’t start the war because of oil that means he really didn’t, then, right? I look fwd to the end of that far left assertion promptly, going by your (il)logic.

So Sister Toldjah – you have no facts or evidence, but it feels right to you that us liberals and Leftists want the US to lose.

Well, there’s that and the fact that liberals are doing exactly what Osama Bin Laden said America would do. Does it bother you to be part of Al Qaeda’s plan for victory???

“After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers.”-Osama Bin Laden

“But I plan to speak about the repeated errors your President Bush has committed in comments on the results of your polls that show an overwhelming majority of you want the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. But [Bush] has opposed this wish and said that withdrawing troops sends the wrong message to opponents â€¦”-Osama Bin Laden

“I can reply to these errors by saying that war in Iraq is raging with no let up, and operations in Afghanistan are escalating in our favour, thank God, and Pentagon figures show the number of your dead and wounded is increasing not to mention the massive material losses â€¦”-Osama bin Lade

Now, is it me, or do Osama’s quotes bear an uncanny resemblance to some of the posts of our visitors today?

Oh thats ok NC Lefty Democrats have a tendency of meeting with the enemy…

From John Kerry meeting with Syrian President:

Sen. John Kerry met today with Syria’s president Bashar al-Assad after a weekend visit in Iraq.

or further back when he went to Paris…

Kerry then suggested that Congress should permit a special national referendum on ending the Vietnam War, leading Fulbright to remind Kerry that Congress “cannot directly under our system negotiate a cease-fire or anything of this kind. Under our constitutional system, we can advise the president.” Kerry responded that, “I realize that full well as a study of political science. I realize that we cannot negotiate treaties, and I realize that even my visits in Paris, precedents had been set by Senator [Eugene] McCarthy and others, in a sense are on the borderline of private individuals negotiating, et cetera.”

Hamas met with a delegation of “important Democrats” who expressed interest in relations with the Palestinian terror group even if it doesn’t recognize the right of Israel to exist, a Palestinian news website claimed today.

Maannews quoted a source in the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority stating the terror group felt it important to meet with members of the Democratic Party since, the Hamas source said, the party will likely win 2008 presidential electionsâ€¦

– I noticed none of the “caring” Left-twits responded to my post. Well, sure….thats what you do when your surrender-weasel agenda gets pushed out into the light of day. Cut and run, just like they did in Nam, and just like they’d love to do in Iraq. Isn’t going to happen, but what might happen, is they’ll burry themselves once and for all with the electorate.

– As to the poll nonsense, that is another simple manipulation of words. What the people are upset about is the lack of real progress in Baghdad, and the obstinence of the Iraqui leadership to really step up and take things in their own hands. THAT does not mean the same thing as “cut and run”. But just as they played games from the very begginning, by saying that American dislike of war means they are against fighting back in the WOT, its the same old Marxist “big lie” manipulations all over again, left over from the cold war. Why we don’t just stamp out the Marxist/Socialist menace once and for all in this country, is beyond belief. They are a clear and present danger, every bit as anti-American as the Wahhabists.

NC Cop-
much respect to your service for our country. i still disagree with you almost completely, but i do respect the sacrifice you were willing to make for what you believe in.

as far as the sanctions, i was in favor of lifting them as I didn’t think they were doing much good outside of hurting iraqi children and innocent civilians, frankly. however, i doubted there was much chance of that happening. the problem with sanctions, as we can see in N. korea now, and iraq before, is that they rarely achieve the desired goal in countries where the people have no voice; it usually only serves to strengthen the regime. Iraq was a pretty messed up place before the invasion, and it obviously still is now. i am not someone who automatically supported whatever the clinton admin’s policies were.

i think the problem we face now is that we are very divided as a nation, and for those of us who are more liberal, rightly or wrongly, bush has very little credibility, so at this point we simply don;t trust him to do anything. i realize that conservatives are less distrusting, but i think this creates the fundamental dilemma. the right thinks we need to give the prez more of a chance, the left thinks until we get rid of the guy, there is basically nothing we can do that will go right.

we’re not “pro-losing”, we’re anti-doing-stupid things in the first place. Such as occupying countries which we don’t understand.

Getting back to the original thread, Joe Klein may be right about many things (He’s against the Iraq war, against the idea of a troop surge, and can’t stand the administration…) but he’s self important and thin-skinned. And anyway, who cares what he thinks?

What’s important is that the Bush administration has cocked everything up so badly that no one trusts him anymore. Even many in right Blogostan are beginning to see that.

I’d argue that many liberals don’t understand America, yet live in it. So, in being anti-doing-stupid things in the first place, I’d suggest moving to a place such as France, Belgium, or the Netherlands. The taxes are high, the willingness to do anything involving force is low, the nanny state mentality is solid – right up a lefty’s alley!

Just so everyone knows how full of BS Joe Klien is, he has been on the talkshows claiming that he was against the war, but now that we are in it…well. how about a quote from Feb. 22, 2003: “This is a really tough decision. War may well be the right decision at this point. In fact, I think itâ€“it’sâ€“itâ€“it probably is.” Klien went around for months aquiesing, like the rest of the d**kless “left wing” media. anyways, now that we are in this complete pile of crap, is leaving the weak thing to do. no, going was the weak thing to do. it was driven by fear, and that same fear is what is keeping us there. in vietnam, we had the same claim. If we leave, the place will go to sh*t, and then the dominos will begin to fall. if we pull out of Iraq, there will be a civil war, with the saudis and iranians vying for influence and paying for it. it will be bloody and end in a dictator and a small genocide. thank god we got rid of that dictator, only to start the selection process and genocidal rage all over again.

Wow ST! You got bombarded today. Too funny. You and your dedicated readers defended the turf nicely. Well done. You know I am a die hard liberty based conservative. I love your blog and the other conservative blogs that I read every day. My stomach wretches every time I see Pelosi or HRC. However, I am souring on the Iraq situation. Here’s why.

I still support the troops and their mission. I think we can still win, but at the moment, I am against more troops for one simple reason:

More troops won’t help if they can’t fight like soldiers are supposed to.

It’s truly sad when Ethiopia, a nation that can’t even feed itself, shows the CIC of the US military how it’s done. Stop being nice. Stop giving a darn about world opinion and start killing the enemy. If the enemy hides in a mosque, it becomes a parking lot. If the enemy hides in a home or school, it becomes a fixer upper real quick. If the enemy hides behind civilians, well, I’m sorry, try not to hit them, but you fire away anyway. If you see the enemy, don’t wait for him to shoot, blow his head off. It works. When the people of the region started screaming for the Ethiopians to stop (after all, we can’t humiliate the radical muslims), they picked up the pace and kept going.

If we took off the gloves, we’d kill a lot fewer civilians than the insurgents are and we’d clean up the place. Don’t tell me that we can’t identify the enemy. If the Ethiopians can, we can too. I know we are trying to let the Iraqi’s govern and defend themselves. That is a great long term goal. But the Iraqi police and army would have a much easier time if that happened after we did some major cleaning up.

But there is the problem. W won’t do this. He still has a no first shot policy in the danger zones. Al Sadr is still alive. We ignore Iran and Syria’s involvement. That’s crazy. Shoot the enemy, kill Al Sadr and his minions and put some burning holes in the ground in Terhan and Damascus. When the world complains, give them the Rummmy salute.

When you pound the enemy into goo, you win and other enemies stay away from you. If you do it the moderate way, if you try to negotiate and be nice, you get what we are getting. You get what Israel is getting.

If we are not going to fight to win, if we are going to play the UN game of trying to do war nicely, we will lose. More troops will just give the enemy more targets. We should not send them if we are not going to unleash them. If we are not going to let our men and women fight this like US soliers are capable of, we should bring them home.

Again, I want to win. I want us to succeed. I think, based on the intel, that the decision to go into Iraq was sound. And if you base it on Bosnia (where we still have troops 10 plus years later), the humanitarian reasons were every bit as sound a justification for going in. What has me bothered by it all, is the fact that we don’t let our troops fight, and when they do, we put them on trial. It’s insane and needs to stop.

ok, it’s dudes like big bang who make it hard for people to take many of the right wing seriously. i am assuming you are a bit older. marxist/socialist menace in america- are you for real, sir? where, pray tell, can such a menace be found? if you are really afraid of that in america, you are truly paranoid delusional. that would really explain a lot of things actually, now that i come to think about it.

You are correct in that the entire document is dated 2005, but the intro is dated 2003. Assuming that the definition of “victory” has not changed, are we closed to it than we were in 2003 or 2005 or are we farther away? It is obvious that we are farther away.

I understand alot of what you said in your last post toward me. It’s difficult to know what the future holds. Sanctions are not effective, just like you said N. Korea is a great example. I just don’t know what our options were. If we did nothing in Iraq and later he did manage to get a WMD to a terrorist group, would we all be screaming “Why didn’t we see this coming?!”

Were mistakes made in Iraq? You bet. I don’t think anyone will deny that. However, mistakes have been made in every major war that we’ve ever fought. I believe that we did the right thing in Iraq and are continuing to do so. I take every death of a U.S. soldier in Iraq very personally, as I’m sure everyone does. I think we can agree that nobody wants to see anymore U.S. casualties, but regimes like Iraq cannot be “contained” very effectively.

I agree with what chris said as well. I think Bosnia is one of the few things the Clinton administration did right. I fully supported what he did back then and what we are still doing there now. It doesn’t matter to me what party the Pres. represents when it comes to things like that. Clinton intervened in the middle of a civil war and brought peace, through force, as well as without a U.N. mandate or a declaration of war. He brought Milosevic to justice and that was a good thing.

– The always euridite response of the mentally deficient, where your arguments are 1 talking page deep, and someone with a working brain denudes your self-pompus ideological idea’s. Ad Hominem away baraduca, but all the same, you know your soft Marxist ideas are straight from the mouths of the typical Leftist poly-sci professor. Independent thinking is decidedly not one of the Lefts strengths. The gaggle of the “elitist” sheeples collective.

– Your wimpy, feckless arguments, are as boneheaded as you are. Grow up. What I think most people realize about the minority of idiotarians is that all Congress would have to do is offer life-time deferments to them, and they’d stop squeeking, and whining, and shaking in their shoes.

NC Cop: I understand alot of what you said in your last post toward me. It’s difficult to know what the future holds. Sanctions are not effective, just like you said N. Korea is a great example. I just don’t know what our options were. If we did nothing in Iraq and later he did manage to get a WMD to a terrorist group, would we all be screaming “Why didn’t we see this coming?!”

Roderick: I am still not getting this about Saddam being the one and only source of terrorists obtaining a nuclear weapon. I am sure with all of the suverelience that Saddam was under by British and American planes and satelites that he would have had a much difficult time slipping a nuke to some terrorist.

I am more concerned about Pakistan which actually has nukes and a leader (dictator) who has a precarious grip on power. But my ultimate concern would be the ‘loose nukes’ from the old Soviet Union. No one knows how much of this material there was to begin with so no one knows how much goes unaccounted.

NC Cop: Were mistakes made in Iraq? You bet. I don’t think anyone will deny that. However, mistakes have been made in every major war that we’ve ever fought.

Roderick: But the difference between this war and other wars is that in other wars when said strategy didn’t work then another strategy was employed and that has not happened in this war. Unfortunately this war began as an ideological war and it continues to be one therefore sending in more troops in without a change in what they are going to do is meaningless.

Furthermore Bush is asking for $1 billion for a jobs program. So it takes Bush almost four years to realize that unemployed male Iraqis are prey for the insurgents?

Maybe if he had thought about that before the invasion then maybe things could be different right now.

NC Cop: I believe that we did the right thing in Iraq and are continuing to do so. I take every death of a U.S. soldier in Iraq very personally, as I’m sure everyone does. I think we can agree that nobody wants to see anymore U.S. casualties, but regimes like Iraq cannot be “contained” very effectively.

Roderick: What had we been doing with Saddam for twelve years since the Gulf War?

Saddam was a paper-tiger dictator who didn’t have an air force and not much of an army.

NC Cop: It’s an unfortuante thing but sometimes you just have to fight.

Roderick: That is all well and good but you guys seem to think that fighting is the only answer to every question.

Like Churchill said: “Never never never give up”

Like the old saying goes: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is the sign of stupidity.

Why do we as America have such a problem with illegal immigrants that they are flocking across our borders for a better life and they count in the MILLIONS?
Why is it when I go downtown to the INS building their waiting rooms are packed to capacity with every nationality coming into the US?

|First answer we have millions of illegales coming from Mexico and Central America because they are impoverished countries who’s workers labor for pennies a day or why is the GM plant in Lansing gone, that is unless I am missing the hoards storming the border from Canada not.
Second answer in my neck of the woods the INS offices are filled with Hmong (see secret operartions in Laos), Somalia (Black down again), elSalvador(sp), and oh yes, Kurds our Muslim allies from Iraq.

I am more concerned about Pakistan which actually has nukes and a leader (dictator) who has a precarious grip on power. But my ultimate concern would be the â€˜loose nukes’ from the old Soviet Union

Ok, then. What should we do about it? It seems, as usual, Bush haters have lots of complaints or “concerns” but no solutions.

Roderick: I am still not getting this about Saddam being the one and only source of terrorists obtaining a nuclear weapon.

I don’t recall anyone ever saying that Saddam was the one and only source of terrorists obtaining a nuclear weapon, perhaps you can find someone who did? Does that mean we shouldn’t deal with a single threat, because we can’t deal with all of them at the same time?

Furthermore Bush is asking for $1 billion for a jobs program. So it takes Bush almost four years to realize that unemployed male Iraqis are prey for the insurgents?

Not at all. But it’s difficult to boost an economy when people are blowing things up all over the country. It’s more important to try and get the insurgency under control then investing in businesses that may get blown up.

But the difference between this war and other wars is that in other wars when said strategy didn’t work then another strategy was employed and that has not happened in this war.

Interesting, you decry Bush for changing strategies and yet bash him for not changing strategies, all in the same post. Even for a Bush hater, that’s a new one.

What had we been doing with Saddam for twelve years since the Gulf War?

If you have read some of my previous posts you would have seen the link to the UNICEF report that twelve years of sanctions to “contain” Saddam had killed 500,000 children alone. Apparently an acceptable alternative to war for the democrats. Odd considering how “concerned” those same democrats seem to be for the Iraqi people.

Saddam was a paper-tiger dictator who didn’t have an air force and not much of an army.

Wow, still stuck in pre-9/11 thinking. They didn’t need any army or air force or nukes to kill 3,000 Americans on 9/11. Terrorists did that. Saddam had a training facility at Salman Pak which was destroyed by U.S. forces.

Notice the part about training in an airplane fuselage on how to hijack planes. Unless, of course, you believe them when Iraqi govt. officials claimed it was for “anti-” terrorism training.

That is all well and good but you guys seem to think that fighting is the only answer to every question.

And you guys seem to think that ignoring a problem and hoping it goes away should be central to foreign policy. How many times will it take before you realize that you can’t ignore threats? In WWII, isolationists decided what was going on in Europe wasn’t our conern, until we were bombed at Pearl Harbor. How might history have been different if the whole world, including the U.S., had stood against Nazi Germany when the invaded Poland in 1939? How many millions might have been saved?

In Korea, we decided it wasn’t worth the price to defeat N. Korea, just driving them out of S. Korea was enough. Now we have a communist, nuclear armed N. Korea with a very dangerous man in charge.

In Vietnam, we decided it was time to “cut our losses” and get out. How many millions were slaughtered by the communists after we left. I guess since they weren’t Americans, it didn’t really matter.

In the first Gulf War, we decided it wasn’t worth it to take Baghdad so we stopped short and went home. Sanctions have devestated the country and killed hundreds of thousands. How many might have been saved had we finished the job?

In Somalia, we turned tail and ran as soon as we took some casualties. Somalia turned into an Al Qaeda stroghold and our retreat has been used by Osama Bin Laden as propoganda on how to defeat the U.S.

So now, it’s time to cut and run from Iraq.

What was it you said about doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result…..oh yes, it’s the sign of stupidity.

nc cop…
you put up an amazing partisan display. i admire your loyalty, if not your logic. but let me ask you straight up…your president has been wrong about every single thing in this invasion and occupation. in four years he has arguably attained his short term goals, and has attained none of his medium or long term goals. what makes you think he is now able to make the right decisions necessary to “win” this thing? why will he now be able to attain his goals when he has not to date?

When they want to cut and run, they don’t want us to win. This is not rocket science.

Let me explain to you just a few ways in which you are wrong.

a) what you refer to interchangeably as Leftists, Liberals and Democrats are not one group. Not even several groups. Basically what you refer to seems to be some unthinking melange of everyone whose political spectrum is to your Left.

b) so for you to say, and apparently believe, that all these different people want the same thing, is just absolutely logically impossible, and to be clear, absurd.

c) as you can tell from the recent polls, most of the US wants the US to pull out of Iraq, and thinks that we should never have invaded in the first place.

So, by your reckoning, most of the US wants the US to lose and hates the US.

Really. Just ridiculous.

Reasonable conclusions can be drawn from how people act and what and how they say things.

And everyone always thinks their own opinions are reasonable. No one ever really thinks they’re wrong. WHich is why we have and need courts, and have and need science – to weigh actual evidence.

To point you back to your own argument – if you think it’s wrong how those you call “Lefties” accuse the Bush administration of only being interested in oil, then YOU should stop accusing entire sections of America of wanting America to lose.

In other words, stop complaining about how OTHER people are being wrong and unfair – and look at what’s coming out of YOUR mouth. That you can control.

You can greatly lessen the amount of unthinking reflexive blame that’s going on in the country, and in your own personal environment. You can resolve not to accuse anyone of anything without specific words-or-deeds evidence. You can improve the world, literally, starting with yourself.

I myself personally do my best to do this, and I’ll tell you it has honestly improved the quality of my life.

Just because someone is from a different party does not mean he is “that parties” president. Same held true for Clinton, even though I wasn’t overly fond of the man, he was my President, because I was an American, and he was the President of the United States at the time. Same holds true when it is the opposite case.

The position he holds is President of the UNITED STATES, not president of which ever party he is associated with, be it democrat, republican or 3rd party (libertarian I beleive).

It irks me to no end to hear such blatant ignorance come out of mouths of Americans when I hear talk like this.

But one thing I will grant, it hasn’t been the UNITED states in some time. United in what? Unfortunately that is a sad question to ask.

NC Cop:I don’t recall anyone ever saying that Saddam was the one and only source of terrorists obtaining a nuclear weapon, perhaps you can find someone who did? Does that mean we shouldn’t deal with a single threat, because we can’t deal with all of them at the same time?

Roderick: We have already spent half a trillion dollars and 3000 Americans have been killed to get rid of Saddam (who was just hanged). The Army is at the breaking point and troops don’t even know why we are there yet you’re saying that we act as if Saddam wasn’t the only threat?

We’ve shot the whole ball of wax and we don’t have anything in reserve.

NC Cop: Not at all. But it’s difficult to boost an economy when people are blowing things up all over the country. It’s more important to try and get the insurgency under control then investing in businesses that may get blown up.

Roderick: And you think that sending in 20K more troops is going to stop things from being blown up.

Bush and his people should never have dissolved Saddam’s army but out of sheer arrogance and hatred that is what they did. Now they have a bunch of mercenaries on their hands.

NC Cop: Interesting, you decry Bush for changing strategies and yet bash him for not changing strategies, all in the same post. Even for a Bush hater, that’s a new one.

Roderick: Where did I say that Bush was changing strategies?

The only thing he is changing is the body count of American troops by adding 20,000 more to the meatgrinder.

NC Cop: What had we been doing with Saddam for twelve years since the Gulf War?

If you have read some of my previous posts you would have seen the link to the UNICEF report that twelve years of sanctions to “contain” Saddam had killed 500,000 children alone. Apparently an acceptable alternative to war for the democrats. Odd considering how “concerned” those same democrats seem to be for the Iraqi people.

Roderick: And how many people have been killed during the chaos since we invaded?

Around 600,000 Iraqi civilians by some estimates and then they will have to breath dust and plant in soil that will be contaminated with depleted uranium forever.

NC Cop: Wow, still stuck in pre-9/11 thinking. They didn’t need any army or air force or nukes to kill 3,000 Americans on 9/11. Terrorists did that. Saddam had a training facility at Salman Pak which was destroyed by U.S. forces.

LINK

Notice the part about training in an airplane fuselage on how to hijack planes. Unless, of course, you believe them when Iraqi govt. officials claimed it was for “anti-” terrorism training.

Roderick: LOL. That sounds the story about the mural depecting the burning Twin Towers on 9-11 supposedly found in Iraq.

So the hi-jackers on 9-11 trained in Iraq to fly planes or to crash them into planes?

I thought these guys trained in Florida.

Did I miss something?

Let’s assume that these were indeed Al-Queda training facilities please tell me what would make them any different than Al-Queda training facilities in say Indonesia or the Phillipines?

Did Saddam wave his wand over the land so that whoever trained there would be extra special evil?

NC Cop: And you guys seem to think that ignoring a problem and hoping it goes away should be central to foreign policy. How many times will it take before you realize that you can’t ignore threats? In WWII, isolationists decided what was going on in Europe wasn’t our conern, until we were bombed at Pearl Harbor. How might history have been different if the whole world, including the U.S., had stood against Nazi Germany when the invaded Poland in 1939? How many millions might have been saved?

In Vietnam, we decided it was time to “cut our losses” and get out. How many millions were slaughtered by the communists after we left. I guess since they weren’t Americans, it didn’t really matter.

Roderick: Wow now you have resorted to revisionist history.

Extrapolating on your thinking the U.S. should have sent troops into Dufar last week but we haven’t because we pick and choose our battles based on our national interest.

NC Cop: In Korea, we decided it wasn’t worth the price to defeat N. Korea, just driving them out of S. Korea was enough. Now we have a communist, nuclear armed N. Korea with a very dangerous man in charge.

Roderick: And you think that if we had that trouble wouldn’t have surfaced elsewhere.

I guess you forget that the U.S. helped create both Saddam and Bin Laden of course that is when both of them were our b*tches. When Saddam got the big head and decided to invade Kuwait and threated ‘our’ oil we put the smackdown on him.

After we assisted Bin Laden in driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan we kicked him to the curb.

NC Cop:In the first Gulf War, we decided it wasn’t worth it to take Baghdad so we stopped short and went home. Sanctions have devestated the country and killed hundreds of thousands. How many might have been saved had we finished the job?

Roderick: LOL. You better stop because you are starting to sound like one of those bleeding heart ‘libruls’

You guys will use any justification to prop up this mess. Sad, very sad.

NC Cop:In Somalia, we turned tail and ran as soon as we took some casualties. Somalia turned into an Al Qaeda stroghold and our retreat has been used by Osama Bin Laden as propoganda on how to defeat the U.S.

Roderick: Blame Bush Sr for Somalia because that was his big f* you to Bill Clinton and America after he lost in 1992.

NC Cop: So now, it’s time to cut and run from Iraq.

Roderick: Ummmmmmmm, I guess you conveniently forget all of those peace protests leading up to the war.

People like ‘liberal’ Middle East experts like Juan Cole tried to warn people like you that this was going to be the outcome but either your pride, hatred or fear allowed you to get sucked into Bush’s lies and I guess you have too much pride to admit that you were duped.

NC Cop: What was it you said about doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different resultâ€¦..oh yes, it’s the sign of stupidity.

Roderick: No the sign of stupidity is that you won’t/can’t separate a war based on agression from one based on ideology.

Vietnam was all about communism vs. capitalism and battle we are now in is radical Islam vs. the West and both were/are ideological wars and neither can be solved by military means.

jay k. This has been addressed before. Respectfully, It might do you well to hear the perspective instead of ingorning it.

You wrote, “in four years he has arguably attained his short term goals, and has attained none of his medium or long term goals. what makes you think he is now able to make the right decisions necessary to “win” this thing?

The president does not micromanage. He has given objectives to the Department of Defense and the Department of State and the Congress. Each one of these entities carry out the mission in different ways with appropriations, purchasing, execution of the war, reactions to enemy combatents, situations on the ground, etc. All the while leftists and journalists hoping helping the enemy win with aid and comfort etc. We are up against a situation where neighboring countries do not want to see a democracy and some inhabitants do not want to see a democracy.

Does that make the objectives unnattainable? Maybe. Does it make the objectives hard to attain. Yes. Does it necessitate removing troops and creating a humanitarian crisis? Responsible people would say no.

The false accusations you level are not based on reality or working knowledge of how the president nor the Department of Defense, State and Congress have operated or have been a part of. What every leftist posting here have accused of failure has basically been calling our military, troops and generals in the theater incompetent.

I submit to you respectfully that you can’t point to ANY war that has been prosecuted without “mistakes”. Was that WW2 jayk? Was it WW1? Has there ever been a war without mistakes? No. War is rife with tragedy and loss of life and a goal to achieve objectives. The objectives are not achieved until achieved. The failure is only a failure if objectives are never achieved.

Leftists in this country are and have been ensuring that objectives will not be achieved and are therefore working against the best interest of this country. Or… what would you suggest is the best interest of this country – following through with creating a humanitarian crisis? You will be disagreed with there and you will be opposed. You will not convince everyone of your thought of best interest NO MATTER HOW CONDESCENDING you treat us who disagree with you. Accept what is is. That we disagree with you and you will have better conversations with us. Are you interested in better conversations?

I have found that fans of the Daou Report are the most dishonest people on the internet. I put a post on there where I mentioned a point about liberals who have equated Bush with Hitler. I was challenged on it and I provided the proof with many links, but as usual with true believing liberals they ran for the hills rather than acknowledge that they were wrong or liars.

It’s obvious that you have no concept of history or facts. I have shown, through history, what has happened when we continually ignore threats. If you think that this has been a success, then I wish you luck in your little fantasy world.

I have shown through facts, that Saddam was involved in terrorism, a fact you have apparently laughed off. It is obvious that people like you want to wait until we are attacked and then respond. Which I guess is ok with you, as long as nobody you know is hurt.

Your facts, though, are quite laughable. 600,000 casualties? What Bush hating, liberal, website did you get that from?

In case you missed my previous posts, I spent 14 months in Iraq and lost my legs in an IED blast, so do me a favor, before you tell ME what is going on in Iraq please take your little liberal, highly evolved sensibilities, and go to Iraq. To say our Army is at a breaking point is the most ignorant thing I have ever seen. Is it because the almighty Murtha said so? Try thinking for yourself or at least do your own research. Don’t let others tell you what to think.

“When they want to cut and run, they don’t want us to win. This is not rocket science.”

No, it is an elementary logical fallacy, known as a “false dilemma.” An equally dishonest leftist might reply, with equally validity, “The right wing wants us to lose as many American lives as possible before our inevitable loss in Iraq.” A more honest individual from either the right or the left would at least acknowledge that there are serious disagreements and valid arguments as to whether any kind of meaningful “victory” in Iraq is possible at this point.

“Well, there’s that and the fact that liberals are doing exactly what Osama Bin Laden said America would do. Does it bother you to be part of Al Qaeda’s plan for victory???”

This is a guilt by association fallacy of the “How can you like cats? Everybody knows that Hitler was a cat lover!” variety

An equally dishonest leftist might point out that every time the right wing emphasizes how much danger America is in from al Qaeda and radical Islam, they are promoting fear and terror, and ask whether it bothers you to be a partner in al Qaeda’s campaign of terror.

Oh and Roderick, I cut and pasted this from another thread. Please take note of the Marines message to their “liberal rescuers”, enjoy:

I read a fantastic aritlce on Iraq in the November 2006 issue of Maxim magazine, I know, I know, it’s MAXIM!! The article, however, was about a former Hollywoood agent who went to Iraq for a few months to see what was really going on. He spent time with the Marines in and around the Triangle of Death. He has some great stories. He starts out by saying:

“In my former life I was Oscar-winning director Steven Soderbergh’s agent and manager. I co-owned a prosperous talent agent firm, I lived in a four story mansion and somehow sucessfully stumbled through the whorehouse called Hollywood. I was an indoctrinated hardcore liberal.”

“When I bought a new Hummer H2 back in 2002, I ordered a custom license plate that read US WINS. I wanted people to have a reaction, usually negative, and then examine their thinking? Would it be so bad to win this war?”

Then he gets really good!

“I could give two f***s about WMD’s. There were much more important reasons to topple Saddam-terrorism being one of them. The root cause of terrorism are the lack of capitalism, the lack of democracy, and the lack of education.”

This guy’s name is Pat Dollard and he made a documentary of Marines in Iraq called Young Americans. I’m going to try and track it down and watch it. The article is a very interesting as it comes from somebody who was ACTUALLY THERE!!!!! Perhaps our wonderful new Congress should read it, especially those dems who have never set foot in Iraq.

Dollard gets blown up more than once and barely gets out alive, but he realizes what’s at stake. The best part is near the end when he says:

“The average Marine was proud to be there doing his job. I have tape after tape of marines telling their liberal “rescuers” to go f**k themselves. They knew what they were doing there, that they were keeping Iraq from turning into a terrorist state that would have made Afghanistan under the Taliban look like Disneyland”

God, I love the Marines!!!!!!!!!!!!

It’s a shame more people can’t get past their hatred of Bush or their own political aspirations to see what this guy saw.

– Careful NC, you’re getting close to using that dirty of all dirty words to SecProgs, (no they’re not classic Liberals, they are brain washed new-wave soft Marxists/Socialists), “Patriotism”.

– “….and ask whether it bothers you to be a partner in al Qaeda’s campaign of terror.”

– This coming from a group whose “surrender weasel/hate America first” mantra is openly supported by Al Qaeda’s leadership. A perfect example of the “Mother of all projection” from the fevor swamp cultists of the “delusional community”.

Klein’s just hit on what so many anti-war leftists (including certain members of Congress) don’t want to admit: they don’t want us to succeed in Iraq. Success in Iraq would not just be a victory for America, but also for President Bush’s policies in the war on terror, and that doesn’t sit well with the Bush-haters in the Democratic party who have portrayed him as a bumbling, inept Commander in Chief.

You are accusing members of Congress of wanting the US to lose in Iraq, and have thousands of soldiers’ lives go for naught, solely because they want Bush to be embarrassed.

I am pointing out to you, among other things, that
a) a majority of the US shares the wish for us to leave Iraq, within a year – do they also want the US to lose to embarass the President?

b) you are ascribing thoughts and motivations to Congressional Democrats specifically, and everyone against the war in general, which are deliberately evil. And you are doing this with absolutely no evidence in word or deed.

c) if you don’t like it when people accuse Bush and the GOP of things without evidence, then you should not accuse Democrats of evil things without evidence in word or deed.

“Guess what? I think conservatives want to eat anchovies on their pizza because they’re gay.

Now, none of you would come out and SAY thisâ€¦but I know what you’re thinking. And really you’re not fooling anyone. “

What a stupid analogy. Reasonable conclusions can be drawn from how people act and what and how they say things.

I think your conclusion that the left wants us to lose is more a refusal on your part to address their concerns in a manner that would validate them. I suppose the same could be said for the left.

If I say the right wants to kill as many US troops as possible, would that offend you? Would you feel it’s accurate? I don’t but I could demonstrate it by your words and actions. I don’t think framing your conclusion in the way that you did really accomplishes anything.

An your trust that al Qaeda is being honest and telling the truth about who and what they support is based upon what? Your personal conviction that they are all-around good guys who would never intentionally try to mislead us?

– So then trrll, the sum total of your defense against the statements, in pure fact, of the very words you use in almost every post, comes down to “Oh…. well if the enemy is supporting our counter cultural positions, then you can be sure there’s a conspiracy in there somewhere”.

– So let Me get this straight. When people, and its the majority no matter how hard you try to abuse the truth of things, say you’re wrong, then its simply because they’re misguided. Whereas when the enemy makes embarrassing public declarations, openly stating they like your “hate Buah” polotics, then it must be some nefarious scheme, writ large, just to manipulate public opinion against you.

– Tell you what. If instead of all the polemic yammering, you just came right out and said you’re afraid to fight for your family, country, and beliefs, I think you’d find people would still recognize your obvious cowardness, but at least you’d stop lying to yourself and everyone else, and that, if you had a shred of character as a group, would be important to you. Obviously, a group who runs from personal responsibility like their hair is on fire, every time they hear that word, lack any of said character. The “end justifies the means”, so lying on a regular basis, is a piece of cake.

“So then trrll, the sum total of your defense against the statements, in pure fact, of the very words you use in almost every post, comes down to “Ohâ€¦. well if the enemy is supporting our counter cultural positions, then you can be sure there’s a conspiracy in there somewhere”

Is it really such a radical notion to imagine that Al Qaeda is conspiring against us? Or to think that it is foolish to trust your enemy to tell you the truth?

Damn them Defeat-o-crats! Look at those anti-Americans give comfort to the enemy by not backing the President at today’s Condi Rice hearings:

“I’ve gone along with the president on this, and I’ve bought into his dream. At this stage of the game, I don’t think it’s going to happen.”

“If we don’t see more specifics and a time frame” for progress in Iraq, “then Congress is probably going to step into the void and set a time frame.”

The president has “set in motion” a “very, very dangerous” series of events. “I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.”

Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”

Oh wait, that was Nancy Pelosi in 1998….

Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There’s no question about that.”

Oh wait, that was Nancy Pelosi in 2002….

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.

Oh, wait that was Bill Clinton in 1998….

People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons.”

Oh, wait that was Bill Clinton in 2002…

No one can doubt or should doubt that we are safer — and Iraq is better — because Saddam Hussein is now behind bars.

Oh, wait that was John Kerry in 2003…

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members…

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”

Oh, wait that was Hillary Clinton in 2003….

Ho, hum………

Interesting how gung ho all these democrats were when the war was going well and we were rolling through Iraq with little to no resistence and the people were cheering our troops.

Ho-hum. Standard liberal panic-wongering. They said that before the first Gulf War too, over 15 years ago.

trrll, speaking from beneath the tin-foil hat, wonders: Is it really such a radical notion to imagine that Al Qaeda is conspiring against us? Or to think that it is foolish to trust your enemy to tell you the truth?

I’m applying Occam’s Razor here. The Islamofascists have a track record of telling us exactly what they intend to do, and then attempting to carry it out.
Therefore, when they broadcast what amount to Democrat campaign ads, I do think that’s their goal, and not some elaborate reverse-psychology scheme you dream up while taking a break from your customary fantasy about Bushitler rounding up all libs and sending them off to concentration camps.

For some reason, the fact that AQ has been remarkably open about its goals and plans eludes the sparkling intellects on the left, who always assume that AQ says the opposite of what they mean.